Original data of Vogt et al. PLOS Biology

Accumulating evidence indicates high risk of bias in preclinical animal research, questioning the scientific validity and reproducibility of published research findings. Systematic reviews found low rates of reporting of measures against risks of bias in the published literature (e.g., randomization, blinding, sample size calculation), and a correlation between low reporting rates and inflated treatment effects. That most animal research undergoes peer-review or ethical review would offer the possibility to detect risks of bias at an earlier stage, before the research has been conducted. For example, in Switzerland animal experiments are licensed based on a detailed description of the study protocol and a harm-benefit analysis. We therefore screened applications for animal experiments submitted to Swiss authorities (n=1277) for of the rates at which the use of seven basic measures against bias (allocation concealment, blinding, randomization, sample size calculation, inclusion/exclusion criteria, primary outcome variable and, statistical analysis plan) was described, and compared them with the reporting rates of the same measures in a representative sub-sample of publications (n=50) resulting from studies described in these applications.